T1B

So far these are the numbers...funny ,I never knew 24% of the voters in NH are insane too. I voted for my man Newt.

Romney 38%

Paul 24%

Hunstman 17%

Gingrich and Santorum battling for fourth a bit below 10% each.

Perry off the radar at less than 1%.

http://www.google.com/elections/ed/us/results

Why is it insane to vote for Ron Paul? Newt scares me. *shiver*

Ron is scary because he wants to return us to a 1930s foreign policy.

You do remember that, right?

It gave way to the 1940s, now gotta kick the fukk outta everybody policy.

As for Newt, I still kind of like him, despite his channeling the democrats these last few days.

smackaholic wrote:Ron is scary because he wants to return us to a 1930s foreign policy.

You do remember that, right?

It gave way to the 2000s, now gotta kick the fukk outta everybody policy.

FTFY

Papa Willie wrote:

smackaholic wrote:Ron is scary because he wants to return us to a 1930s foreign policy.

You do remember that, right?

It gave way to the 1940s, now gotta kick the fukk outta everybody policy.

As for Newt, I still kind of like him, despite his channeling the democrats these last few days.

You mean Paul doesn't want to be the world police?

What's wrong with a policy where we cut all of these dune coons and most everybody else off for a fucking change? We give these cunts billions of dollars each year - that we don't even fucking have?

Why not just tell them "Sorry - but we are not going to associate with you anymore. Our country is fucked up enough all on it's own. However - if you fuck with us, we will nuke your fucking asses into dust"? What's wrong with that?

What's wrong with downsizing the living FUCK out of our government - getting rid of a bunch of fucked up crooked lawyers? What's wrong with abolishing the IRS? What's wrong with people taking a LITTLE fucking responsibility on their own as opposed to letting a communist government control us and watch over ever single move we make? What's wrong with chilling out on making a thousand laws per day and just simply ENFORCE the ones we've got?

Hope that helps.

And btw - Newt is fucking Bill Clinton with an (R) in front of his name.

you do mean the extra marital stuff right? concur! except Newt won't get the opportunity to drag it into the White House.

Papa Willie wrote:

smackaholic wrote:Ron is scary because he wants to return us to a 1930s foreign policy.

You do remember that, right?

It gave way to the 1940s, now gotta kick the fukk outta everybody policy.

As for Newt, I still kind of like him, despite his channeling the democrats these last few days.

You mean Paul doesn't want to be the world police?

What's wrong with a policy where we cut all of these dune coons and most everybody else off for a fucking change? We give these cunts billions of dollars each year - that we don't even fucking have?

Why not just tell them "Sorry - but we are not going to associate with you anymore. Our country is fucked up enough all on it's own. However - if you fuck with us, we will nuke your fucking asses into dust"? What's wrong with that?

What's wrong with downsizing the living FUCK out of our government - getting rid of a bunch of fucked up crooked lawyers? What's wrong with abolishing the IRS? What's wrong with people taking a LITTLE fucking responsibility on their own as opposed to letting a communist government control us and watch over ever single move we make? What's wrong with chilling out on making a thousand laws per day and just simply ENFORCE the ones we've got?

Hope that helps.

And btw - Newt is fucking Bill Clinton with an (R) in front of his name.

There's absolutely nothing wrong with that. In fact, it's the only intelligent course of action... which is why our electorate won't do it.

The propaganda machine of the military-industrial-complex did its job -- they think there's people on the opposite side of the planet who lack running water, yet sit around all day hatching up grad schemes to kill Joe The Plumber because "they hate our freedoms." Nevermind that the logical disconnect there is off the charts, it makes John Q. Nobody feel important, so he's willing to print trillions of dollars we don't have to continue occupying half the planet, because obviously the Sudanese Navy will set sail across the Atlantic tomorrow if we don't.


Then again, maybe they "hate us" because we do things that effect their daily lives and freedoms... nahhhh, it's because "they hate our freedoms"... that's it.


The brainwashing has been quite effective -- the Republicrats have people distracted by their relatively petty differences, in a great ruse to divert attention away from keeping the reigning power-mongers in control, so they can keep the printing presses going to give to their buddies, who kick it back to them... over and over and over.

And the sheeple buy into it hook, line, and sinker, and have even been trained well enough to mock anyone who challenges the status quo (sup Ron Paul).


Just ponderous. People voted for "Change" by backing an established, entrenched same-old-monger. Then, yet again, a guy came along offering change, and he's mocked. I'd say "I don't get it," but the Average Joe is pretty fucking stupid.

smackaholic wrote:Ron is scary because he wants to return us to a 1930s foreign policy.

You do remember that, right?

It gave way to the 1940s, now gotta kick the fukk outta everybody policy.

As for Newt, I still kind of like him, despite his channeling the democrats these last few days.

BTW - This is a fine example of a "brain, and THEN keyboard moment."

How did the Cold War/Post Cold War policy of "occupy everything" work for preventing wars?


Oh, wait -- it caused them.

So, in light of common sense and simple logic defeqating your argument, got anything else?

Dinsdale wrote:

smackaholic wrote:Ron is scary because he wants to return us to a 1930s foreign policy.

You do remember that, right?

It gave way to the 1940s, now gotta kick the fukk outta everybody policy.

As for Newt, I still kind of like him, despite his channeling the democrats these last few days.

BTW - This is a fine example of a "brain, and THEN keyboard moment."

How did the Cold War/Post Cold War policy of "occupy everything" work for preventing wars?


Oh, wait -- it caused them.

So, in light of common sense and simple logic defeqating your argument, got anything else?

He's got a high score on a civics test.

not just a high score, but 33/33, bitches!!!!!

all righty dins, i'll go over it again.

back in the old days when goobs was....well, not sure if he was young, but, he was younger, i'm talking 1930s, we had RP's foreign policy. And guess what happened? Foreign types got a little squirrelly and we ended up having to put an ass whuppin on them. And since we waited till they got pretty strong, it was a costly ass whuppin.

as for their being wars out there today, you are right.

wanna know why?

people are assholes. that is why.

it is the natural order of things, unfortunately.

so, we can sit back cross our fingers and hope for peace in our time, or we can walk the neighborhood with a big fukkin' stick, knowing full well, that occasionally someones gonna get a piece of that stick.

i am not saying that we need to venture down every dark alley with that stick, because frankly, i don't give a fukk what happens in some alleys, but, there are other places where it is in our best interest to see to it that the locals stay in line. in my opinion, afghanistan is one of those dark alleys, leave them be. iraq, on the other hand is smack in the middle of teh place we get our go juice from. maybe someday we'll use local go juice, but, today, we need to keep that supply flowing.

what was that line some ancient roman dude spouted about preparing for war to keep peace? he was right.

does anyone know how to say "keep your pimp hand strong" in latin?

So, see if I have this right...

you contend that regardless of US foreign policy, there's going to be wars.

And you advocate a policy that we should print up a bunch of money to prevent wars that you admit are going to occur anyway.

Sheer brilliance. Then again, I guess I'm not surprised to see this, coming from Mr. 33/33, who believes that Iraq is "smack in the middle" of Canada.

Smack & I may not see eye to eye, but we're more or less on the same page on this one.

Leaders of foreign countries aren't exempt from the faults of humanity. Because of that we need to deal with them in much the same way we deal with people in this country. And that means we need to adopt the same m.o.'s fhat police use to keep things civil. Ask any street cop and they'll tell you that if you deal with the small xtuff the large issues will be taken care of. What that means is that if one makes it known that the small crap won't be tolerated, they'll be less inclined to start something bigger. And keeping it that way allows one to deal with problem people/nations while they are small instead of when they are bigger and/or more costly to clean up.

Class dissmissed.

Yeah, I suppose if in the 1930's, the US would have only occupied Germany, Italy, Poland, Belgium, France, Japan, China, Indonesia, Vietnam/Laos/Cambodia, Africa, and a few other places, everything would have been hunky-dory.


But the Tard Contingent is correct about one thing -- foreign leaders nor their countrymen are exempt from basic human nature. And basic human nature dictates that when someone... say a bully starts telling them what they can and can't do, and starts trying to dictate what they can and can't do with their resources, and engages in other activities that effect the citizen's everyday lives, it will spawn resentment, and that resentment will inspire those who are affected to do what they can within their power to resist those who are up in their business.

Basic. Fucking. Human. Nature.


But it is uplifting that some of you have grasped the very basics, despite the fact you failed the next basic lesson.


Stupid is as stupid does.

Dinsdale wrote:And basic human nature dictates that when someone... say a bully starts telling them what they can and can't do, and starts trying to dictate what they can and can't do with their resources, and engages in other activities that effect the citizen's everyday lives, it will spawn resentment, and that resentment will inspire those who are affected to do what they can within their power to resist those who are up in their business.

You're talking about provoking Japan into a fight, correct?

Dinsdale wrote:So, see if I have this right...

you contend that regardless of US foreign policy, there's going to be wars.

yup

And you advocate a policy that we should print up a bunch of money to prevent wars that you admit are going to occur anyway.

not all of them. we should not concern ourselves with regional squabbles that don't concern us. dirt poor central asian or african savages should be allowed to exterminate one another as they see fit. not our problem. but when an asshat like sadaam starts to do things not in our interest, we should thump him. i would have preferred a quick severe ass kicknig, followed by us getting the fukk out of dodge and leaving a note for the new guy saying he can be our friend or follow in his predessesors footsteps.

Sheer brilliance. Then again, I guess I'm not surprised to see this, coming from Mr. 33/33, who believes that Iraq is "smack in the middle" of Canada.

OK, asswhipe, we don't get "most" of it there, but, we get a good deal and many of our friends in the world do get most there.